Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Poverty and Vulnerability - An

Interdisciplinary Approach

Makoka, Donald and Kaplan, Marcus

Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn

November 2005

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6964/
MPRA Paper No. 6964, posted 02 Feb 2008 06:29 UTC
!

" #$$%
&'() *(
 ( &+, -. *-"(,"('

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. DEFINITION OF POVERTY 5
2.1 Main Concepts of Poverty 6
2.2 Absolute and Relative Poverty 7
2.3 Perspectives of Poverty 7
2.4 Poverty Indicators 8
2.4.1 Quantitative and Qualitative 8

3. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS OF VULNERABILITY 8

3.1 Different Concepts Of Vulnerability 12

4. LINKAGES BETWEEN VULNERABILITY AND POVERTY 15

5. POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY MEASURES 17

5.1 Poverty Measures 17
5.1.1. Poverty Incidence or Poverty Rate, P0 18
5.1.2. Poverty Gap Index, P1 18
5.1.3. The Squared Poverty Gap Index, P219
5.1.4. The Foster8Greer8Thorbecke Poverty Index 19
5.1.5. The Human Poverty Index 20
5.2 Measuring Vulnerability 20
5.2.1 Measuring Vulnerability: The Economics Approach 20
5.2.2 Measuring Vulnerability: The Environmental and Development Approach 21
5.2.2.1 The Commonwealth Vulnerability Index (CVI) 22
5.2.2.2 The Environmental Vulnerability Index 22
5.2.2.3 Prevalent Vulnerability Index 23

6. VULNERABILITY AND VULNERABLE GROUPS 23

7. CASE STUDIES 24
7.1 The Impact of Drought in Malawi. 24
7.2 Labour Migration as a result of Poverty in Tajikistan. 25
7.3 Heat Wave 2003 in Europe 27

8. CONCLUSIONS 29

9. REFERENCES 30
/ "()- 0*( -"
The world has experienced dramatic environmental and socioeconomic changes in recent
decades. Phenomena like population growth, rapid urbanisation processes, increasing poverty
but also environmental degradation, climate change, and the increase in natural disasters
have affected the social and economic development in many parts of the world. Because of
these different factors, which can be summarised under the term “global change”, many
people have become more vulnerable to the negative effects of very different hazards. Thus
the concept of vulnerability has become more and more prominent in recent decades.

Poverty as the other important aspect of this paper is prevalent in large parts of the world and
is one of the largest challenges of mankind in the 21st century. Therefore the member states of
the United Nations decided at the Millennium Summit in 2000 to combat global poverty and to
halve the number of poor people by the year 2015. The Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) name quantitative targets and indicators in order to measure progress in the fight
against poverty. The achievement of these targets is jeopardised by global change, because
poor people mostly have the least possibilities to cope with its negative effects. Therefore it is
important to analyse their vulnerability to different risks, and subsequently to enhance their
abilities to cope with these effects.

Poverty cannot be reduced to income poverty, but there are other important factors, which
determine the well8being of people. As vulnerability is also a multi8dimensional approach, the
application of such a comprehensive view might give the chance to get a holistic picture of
chances and threats for the livelihoods of people particularly in developing countries.

One objective of this paper is to give an introduction to the meaning of the terms poverty and
vulnerability, and to present an overview about different concepts. This will be done in the
chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 4 can be seen as the core of the paper, as it shows the
interconnections but also the differences between the two concepts. Chapter 5 analyses
approaches to measure poverty and vulnerability, which is still quite a challenge because of
their multi8dimensional nature. Nevertheless there are also approaches, which are restricted
to the measuring of income poverty. Chapter 6 gives a brief overview about vulnerable groups
with a focus on vulnerability to poverty. Before we finally draw the conclusions from our
analyses in chapter 8, chapter 7 contains three case studies from Malawi, Tajikistan and
Europe. Two of these case studies deal with the vulnerability to natural hazards, while the
Tajikistan example discusses vulnerability to poverty. These examples from developing as
well as from developed countries shall serve as an application to the more theoretical and
conceptual approach of the former chapters.
# ,. " ( -" -. - ,)(1
The notion of poverty is determined in different ways by different institutions. The indicators of
poverty differ as well. For ease of reference and coherence in global assessments,
development agencies often employ quantitative measures of poverty, such as those setting a
threshold of one or two dollars a day. Specific indicators relating to certain economic and
social factors (such as infant mortality and literacy rates) are also employed. But many
aspects of poverty, some of which are crucial to a human rights analysis, are not reflected in
the statistical indicators. However, poverty has a number of definitions that have different
measuring dimensions.

UNHCR defines “Poverty” as a human condition characterized by the sustained or chronic

deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the
enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political social
rights (UNHCR 2004).Thus, poverty is the state of being without the necessities of daily living,
often associated with need, hardship and lack of resources across a wide range of
circumstances. For some, poverty is a subjective and comparative term; for others, it is moral
and evaluative; and for others, scientifically established.

The Copenhagen Declaration of 1995, describes absolute poverty as "a condition

characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking
water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information." The World Bank, on the
other hand identifies "extreme poverty" as being people who live on less than US $1 a day,
and "poverty" as less than $2 a day. On that standard, 21% of the world's population was in
extreme poverty, and more than half the world's population were poor in 2001.

According to the World Bank (2001), about 1.1 billion humans worldwide (which is 21% of the
worldpopulation) had less than $1 in local purchasing power per day. (In comparison: 1981
there were 1.5 billion humans, which made up 40% of the worldpopulation; in 1987, 1.227
billion humans equaling 30%; in 1993, 1.314 billion humans equaling 29% of the
worldpopulation).

Poverty may be seen as the collective condition of poor people, or of poor groups, and in this
sense entire nation8states are sometimes regarded as poor. To avoid stigma these are usually
called developing nations, instead of calling them impowerished nations.

However, economic deprivation – lack of income – is a standard feature of most definitions of

poverty. But this in itself does not take account of the myriad of social, cultural and political
aspects of the phenomenon. Poverty is not only deprivation of economic or material resources
but a violation of human dignity too. In this regard it worth to note the phrase by Kofi Annan,
UN Secretary General that states: “Wherever we lift one soul out of a life of poverty, we are
defending human rights. And whenever we fail in this mission, we are failing human rights”
(UNHCR 2004).

Poverty can be conceived as absolute or relative, as lack of income or failure to attain

capabilities. It can be chronic or temporary, it is sometimes closely associated with inequity,
and is often correlated with vulnerabilities and social exclusion. Chapter 5 of this paper
reviews the main types and families of indicators that have emerged over time, highlighting
their strengths and weaknesses.

As far as the poverty issue is discussed, it is always closely associated with the poverty line.
The poverty line is the minimum threshold level of income (or consumption) below which one
cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live. People who have an income
below the poverty line have no discretionary disposable income, by definition (CCSD 2001).

Practically, different countries often use different poverty lines. But in general, it is more
common to use only one poverty line in order to compare economic welfare levels of countries
and regions. When comparing poverty across countries, the purchasing power parity
exchange rates are used. These are used to ensure that the poverty levels do not change
with the normal exchange rates. Thus, as it was already mentioned, 'living for under $1 a day'
should be understood as having a daily total consumption of goods and services comparable
to the amount of goods and services that can be bought in the US for $1. Self8produced goods
and public services are included in this measure.

Poverty is not an exceptional case. Almost all societies have some of their citizens living in
poverty. The poverty line is useful as an economic tool with which to measure such people
and consider socioeconomic reforms such as welfare and unemployment insurance to reduce
poverty. Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the
essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year. This approach is
needs8based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain
a tolerable life (Sawhil 1990).

#/ * 2
As a multidimensional phenomenon, poverty is defined and measured in a multitude of ways.
This section describes different concepts of poverty and attempt to distinguish them from and
other closely related concepts.

From the perspective of indicators, these distinctions are important since poverty
measurement and subsequent policy and programme implications depend on what facets or
angles of poverty are being addressed. For example, if a national poverty reduction strategy is
supposed to address both temporary and chronic poverty, two distinct sets of policies and
programmes would be required, along with two sets of indicators for establishing baselines
and monitoring progress (Dessalien 2000). Likewise, if the definition of poverty is based on
the human capabilities concept, then appropriate sets of indicators would be required to
measure it along with corresponding policies and programmes to address it. This would result
in poverty reduction strategies that differ from those associated with an income8based concept
of poverty (UNDP Poverty Report 2000).
## )
Poverty can be viewed in absolute and relative terms. Absolute poverty refers to subsistence
below minimum, socially acceptable living conditions, usually established based on nutritional
requirements and other essential goods. Relative poverty compares the lowest segments of a
population with upper segments, usually measured in income quintiles or deciles. Absolute
and relative poverty trends may move in opposite directions. For example, relative poverty
may decline while absolute poverty increases if the gap between upper and lower strata of a
population is reduced by a decline in well being of the former at the same time that additional
households fall beneath the absolute poverty line (Dessalien 2000).

Even within so8called absolute poverty, countries often distinguish between indigence, or
primary poverty and secondary poverty (sometimes referred to as extreme and overall
poverty). Indigence usually refers to those who do not have access to the basic necessities for
human survival, while other forms of poverty refer to degrees of deprivation above that
threshold. For example, households incapable of obtaining sufficient food for survival are
considered absolutely poor. However, the costs and composition of that food basket may vary
considerably between households across different groups, regions and countries.

Another facet of absolute and relative aspects of poverty pertains to changes in

circumstances. For example, if prices rise faster than incomes, the well8being of some
households classified as relatively poor may decline to levels formally associated with
absolute poverty, without a corresponding change in status since the living standards of the
absolute poor have also declined proportionally. A similar situation arises when cultural or
status values change over time.

#3 2

Poverty can be approached from objective or subjective perspectives. The objective

perspective (sometimes referred to as the welfare approach) involves normative judgements
as to what constitutes poverty and what is required to move people out of their impoverished
state. The subjective approach, on the other hand, places a premium on people’s preferences,
on how much they value goods and services (hence the emphasis on individual utility).
Economists have traditionally based their work on the objective approach, mainly because of
the obstacles encountered when trying to aggregate multiple individual utilities across a
population (Dessalien 2000). Advocates of this approach use the argument that individuals
are not always the best judge of what is best for them. For example, most poverty
measurement systems focus on nutritional attainments. The main argument under this focus
although all individuals value food consumption, some may place higher value on certain food
types or food quantities that are not best for their physiological well being. It is conceivable
that the subjective approach could both undervalue and overvalue food consumption when
compared to the welfare approach, leading to conflicting assessments as to who are the poor.

However, poverty measurement has traditionally been dominated by the objective approach.
Only relatively recently has the international community as a whole taken a serious interest in
measuring subjective poverty. This is mainly because of mounting recognition of the
limitations associated with so8called objective indicators and the value of understanding the
perspectives of the poor in shaping policies and programmes. As a result, participatory
poverty assessment methodologies have been gaining ground (Dessalien 2000).

Clearly both objective and subjective perspectives bring valuable insights to the measurement
and analysis of poverty. They approach the phenomena from different angles and capture
fundamentally different aspects of it, neither of which can be said to be categorically right or
wrong.

#4

#4/ 5 5
Quantitative and qualitative indicators are sometimes confused with objective and subjective
perspectives of poverty. In fact, an objective concept of poverty could be measured with both
quantitative and qualitative indicators, and the same applies to subjective approaches. For
example, an objective approach to poverty measurement may determine that perceptions of
deteriorating academic standards (a qualitative indicator) are the principal cause of declining
school enrolment. Likewise, a subjective approach to poverty measurement may reveal that
household composition (which can be quantified) is a central characteristic of poverty.

The confusion arises because the main methodologies for obtaining “objective” poverty
indicators are survey questionnaires, which generally place a premium on quantitative data.
Conversely, the main instruments used to ascertain subjective perspectives of poverty result
in generous amounts of qualitative information (although they may also generate quantitative
data). Quantitative data can be aggregated whereas qualitative information usually cannot. On
the other hand, qualitative information may provide a subtler picture of reality than can
quantitative data (Dessalien 2000).

3 ,. " ( -" " *-"*, (' -. 0+",) & + (1

The world has experienced dramatic environmental and socioeconomic changes in recent
decades. Phenomena like population growth, rapid urbanisation processes, poverty but also
environmental degradation, climate change, and the increase in natural disasters have
affected the social and economic development in many parts of the world. Because of these
different aspects of global change many people have become more vulnerable to the negative
effects of very different hazards. Hazard in this context means:

“A property or situation that under particular circumstances could lead to harm. More specific,
a hazard is a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity, which may
cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or
environmental degradation. Hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and
effects. Each hazard is characterised by its location, intensity and probability” (UN/ISDR
2004a).

This broad definition shows the multi8faceted nature of the term, i.e. vulnerability can be
related to a lot of different hazards. Households, communities, countries etc. can be
vulnerable to any kind of event that may have harmful consequences for them once it takes
place. This is one reason, why it is pretty difficult to describe or to even measure vulnerability.
It is only really displayed when an event takes place. One year ago probably no one in Sri
Lanka had the idea that establishing critical infrastructure like hospitals or schools directly at
the coastline might be quite dangerous. Now, after the tsunami had struck the island in
December 2004 and caused a huge number of fatalities, we know about that particular risk,
and vulnerability assessments are now taking place (Birkmann, personal communication).

Despite this broad approach most studies on this topic deal with the vulnerability to natural
hazards, to climate change or to poverty. This particular aspect, the general vulnerability to
become poor or to stay poor, shall be dealt with in more detail in chapter 4, which analyses
the linkages between vulnerability and poverty. The vulnerability to the impacts of climate
change is gaining more and more importance, as it is getting clearer, that mankind cannot
avoid some negative impacts of climate change, regardless of the next steps taken to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2001).

The frequency and magnitude of natural disasters have increased in recent decades, as it can
be seen in figure 1. This encompasses e.g. hazards like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, or storm surges. Some of these natural events are triggered by
anthropogenic activities, like land degradation or the combustion of fossil fuels. Global
environmental change and especially the anthropogenic interference of the earth’s climate
system lead to the warming of the atmosphere, which will in turn have a severe impact on the
frequency and magnitude of some natural disasters.
.6 / " 2" ) 7 /8$$ /888 ' . 966 &
#$$# #/

These increases in natural disasters as well as the other impacts of global change have led
the international community to concentrating more on mitigating the impacts of such hazards.
By dealing with this topic a paradigm shift (Birkmann, forthcoming 2006; Thywissen,
forthcoming 2006) has taken place: while the traditional view focused on the hazard itself and
on technical aspects in order to minimise its impacts, in recent decades scientists as well as
practitioners switched more and more towards the livelihood of the affected people or
communities in order to reduce their susceptibility to such events. Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich
state: “The term ‘vulnerability’ was introduced as a response to the hazard8centric perception
of disasters in the 1970s (…). With its growing recognition at the beginning of the 1980s,
‘vulnerability’ was used to express the understanding that the extent to which people suffer
from calamities depends on (a) ‘the likelihood of being exposed to hazards’ and (b) ‘their
capacity to withstand them, which relates to their socio8economic circumstances’”
(Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich 2004: 13). By applying this preventive approach the concept of
vulnerability has gained more prominence in recent decades.

This focus on the vulnerability of potentially affected people is i.e. due to the fact, that a
natural hazard is not a disaster by itself, but it only becomes a disaster with potentially severe
consequences through the presence of people, who are vulnerable to its impacts. (Prowse
2003: 4) This has also been stressed by Kofi Annan: “Natural hazards are a part of life. But
hazards only become disasters when people’s lives and livelihoods are swept away.” (Annan
2003).
As many people and disciplines are working on vulnerability, the meaning of the term as well
as its influencing factors have become more and more confusing (Thywissen calls it
“Babelonian confusion”; Thywissen, forthcoming 2006): “although practitioners, experts and
researchers agreed on the need to further emphasise the socio8economic situation, their view
on the concept of vulnerability and the underlying definitions diverged strongly depending on
the approach adopted” (Schneiderbauer, Ehrlich 2004: 14).
There are myriads of different definitions for the term vulnerability. It would go far beyond the
scope of this paper to list and discuss them all. Extensive work on this topic has been done by
Thywissen (forthcoming 2006). Differences in definitions arise from the discipline that looks at
vulnerability. A person working in development cooperation will certainly put a different focus
than a disaster manager, an economist or a construction engineer.

Two general definitions that are well8known and that can be regarded as being quite
comprehensive, shall be stated here as examples. The International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (UN/ISDR) sees vulnerability as

(UN/ISDR 2004)

The United Nations Development Programme in contrast defines vulnerability as:

(UNDP 2004a)

Both definitions – like many of the other definitions – put an emphasis on the human
conditions as a major factor of vulnerability. Therefore UNDP also developed the human8
centred Disaster Risk Index, which measures the vulnerability of a community by dividing the
number of people killed by the number of people exposed (Birkmann 2005: 2).

Thus vulnerability generally describes the internal risk of being affected by such a harmful
event (Cardona 2004: 37). For some authors vulnerability also comprises the ability to cope
with such events and to recover after them (Birkmann forthcoming 2006).

Determination of vulnerability must always be hazard8specific (Adger 1998: 9), i.e. on must
always ask: vulnerability to what? (Cardona 2004: 38). A coastal community in a developing
country might be highly vulnerable to floods, but not at all to droughts.

Furthermore the level has to be taken into account, whose vulnerability shall be assessed, as
it makes a big difference for the choice of vulnerability indicators, if vulnerability shall be
evaluated for a single household or for a whole country. Adger (1998: 6) e.g. differentiates
between individual (household) and collective vulnerability.
Apart from the many different approaches, all authors agree that vulnerability is a multi8
dimensional concept that comprises physical, social, economic, environmental, political,
cultural and institutional factors. This multi8dimensionality and the focus on non8natural
science issues make vulnerability more difficult to measure or just allow a qualitative approach
for measuring (Thywissen, forthcoming 2006).

German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) states that “vulnerability is caused by a broad range of
political, institutional, economic, environmental and socio8cultural factors such as insufficient
knowledge, organisational gaps, lack of personal and financial resource, inadequate
legislation, etc.” (GTZ 2005: 13). Thus vulnerability must not be restricted to a simple cause8
effect relationship (GTZ 2005: 15).

Also many authors emphasise the dynamic and forward8looking nature of the vulnerability
approach (Heitzmann et al. 2002: 1). It is regarded as being dynamic, because the
vulnerability of a community or any other element at risk is never a determined factor, but it
can change over time, and enhancing the coping capacity of the element at risk can certainly
influence its vulnerability (Alwang et al. 2001: 25; GTZ 2005: 13).

Vulnerability does – in contrast to poverty – not only describe a current status of a society, but
it contains a predictive feature, i.e. it describes what might happen in the future, if a certain
hazard is going to occur. Cannon et al. emphasise its forward8looking nature: “vulnerability
should involve a predictive quality: it is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen
to an identifiable population under conditions of particular risk and hazards.” (Cannon et al.
2003: 4). Vulnerability is “an intrinsic characteristic of a community” (Thywissen, forthcoming
2006), which is always there and which is only revealed, when a hazard takes place.

3/ 22 * 2
This part is intended to give a brief overview on different approaches to analyze vulnerability.
Again it is beyond the scope of this paper to give a comprehensive analyse about all
approaches, as a lot of different ideas have evolved in recent years.

Bohle distinguishes between the “internal” and the “external” side of vulnerability. The external
side refers to the structural dimensions of vulnerability and risk, and describes the exposure of
the affected people, while the internal side marks the actions of the people to cope with
hazards or at least mitigate their negative effects. These coping mechanisms are a highly
complex issue, and have so far been neglected in theoretical and conceptual discussions
(Bohle 2001).

In his approach to the social and economic vulnerability to climate change in Vietnam, Adger
goes into a similar direction, when he describes vulnerability as “a combination of social
factors and environmental risk, where risks are those physical aspects of climate related
hazards exogenous to the social system” (Adger 1998: 5)
In their report for DFID Cannon et al. concentrate on social vulnerability, which is “much more
than the likelihood of buildings to collapse or infrastructure to be damaged” (Cannon et al.
2003: 5). It is a “complex set of characteristics that include a person’s
8 initial well being (nutritional status, physical and mental health, morale);
8 livelihood and resilience (asset pattern and capitals, income and exchange options,
qualifications);
8 self8protection (the degree of protection afforded by capability and willingness to build
safe home, use safe site);
8 social protection (forms of hazard preparedness provided by society more generally,
e.g. building codes, mitigation measures, shelters, preparedness);
8 social and political networks and institutions (social capital, but also role of institutional
environment in setting good conditions for hazard precautions, peoples’ rights to
express needs and of access to preparedness)” (Cannon et al. 2003: 5).
This listing again points out the complex, multi8dimensional nature of the vulnerability concept.

Downing et al. (forthcoming 2006: 4) also focus on social vulnerability. They worked out six
attributes, which are in parts like a summary of the previous chapter. According to them
vulnerability is:
8 the differential exposure to stresses experienced or anticipated by different unites
exposed,
8 a dynamic process,
8 rooted in the actions and multiple attributes of human actors,
8 is often determined by social networks in social, economic, political and environmental
interactions,
8 manifested simultaneously on more than one scale,
8 influenced and driven by multiple stresses.
Cardona (2004: 48) analyses the linkages between vulnerability and development. He points
out that “vulnerability signifies a lack or a deficit of development” and that “risk is constructed
socially”. Therefore he also focuses on the intrinsic susceptibility of a community. In his
opinion vulnerability originates in: physical fragility or exposure, socio8economic fragility, and a
lack of resilience (Cardona 2004: 49). By taking a look at these parameters he tries to get to a
holistic view of vulnerability, which covers both physical factors as well as socio8economic
aspects.

The Pressure and Release Model (PAR) by Wisner et al. (2004: 49ff.) distinguishes between
the processes generating vulnerability and the natural hazard. This model, which is based
upon the often used equation, Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability, defines three different levels of
vulnerability: the “root causes” describe economic, demographic and political processes that
determine the access to power and resources, while the category “dynamic pressure”
comprises processes, which channel the effects of the first category into unsafe conditions,
like epidemics, rapid urbanisation and violent conflicts. The unsafe conditions form the third
category, reveals human vulnerability. For example made up of protection against diseases,
or living in hazardous locations.

Birkmann (forthcoming 2006) draws the conclusion that nearly all concepts concentrate more
and more on the “internal side of risk”. That means that the focus switches from the hazard
itself and technical and engineering solutions to the society at risk and its possibilities to deal
with the negative effect of hazards.

Finally Figure 2 shows the “onion framework”, an example of a comprehensive model to

analyse the different spheres of vulnerability and the abilities of a community to cope with the
effects of a hazard, which in this case is a flood (Bogardi and Birkmann 2004; Birkmann,
forthcoming 2006). The circle relating to the social sphere contains different capacities of a
society to cope with a hazard. Thus this model also states that “whether a flood event
becomes a disaster or not depends almost as much on the preparedness and coping capacity
of the affected society as on the nature of the flood event itself” (Birkmann, forhtcoming 2006).

$% %& '( ! ') # *

0 -&
/ & 1

" # !
+ ,
' !

! - ' .
/

.6 # 2 2 ' & 6 & #$$4 :8

4 + "! ;,' &,(<,," 0+",) & + (1 " - ,)(1

Most authors working on vulnerability see a clear linkage between vulnerability and poverty,
regardless of the hazard they are looking at. They also emphasise that vulnerability and
poverty are not describing the same aspect, but that there are clear differences (e.g.
Hoogeveen et al. 2004: 5).
The vulnerability to poverty, i.e. to fall below the poverty line, forms a particular linkage
between the two concepts. It will be described at the end of this chapter.

The previous two chapters have shown that today vulnerability and poverty are both seen as
multi8dimensional concepts. Poverty is not only regarded as not having enough income
anymore, but also looks at the “well8being” of the people, while vulnerability focuses more on
social and economic obstacles than on the hazard itself.
The most striking difference is the dynamic nature of vulnerability, as it has been outlined in
the previous chapter. It gives a forward8looking perspective on what might happen, if a certain
hazard takes place. Poverty in contrast is a description and measure of current status. This
view has been taken e.g. by Alwang et al. (2001) and Cannon et al. (2003).

Furthermore poverty is not hazard8specific like vulnerability, as it has been pointed out by
Adger: “Poverty may or may not be a relative term, but there are not varying “poverties” for
any one individual or family” (Adger 1998: 9).

The linkages between vulnerability and poverty have been the subject of intensive research
and discussion. Depending on the discipline and on the objectives of the study vulnerability is
often seen as being a component of poverty or vice versa. As vulnerability is a pretty new
concept – especially in comparison to poverty – some authors, particularly those working in
the context of development cooperation, see vulnerability as one aspect, which can cause
poverty or hinder people from escaping out of poverty. Prowse e.g. mentions a few studies,
which describe vulnerability “as being part of the multiple dimensions of poverty” (Prowse
2003: 9 . The inclusion of vulnerability into analyses of poverty is supported by the fact that
today poverty is not only being measured as income poverty, but seen within a larger
framework of “well8being”, which tries to take a comprehensive view on the livelihood of the
people.
Figure 3 illustrates an example for the view of the development cooperation community
towards the relation between vulnerability and poverty. Here vulnerability is one of several
factors determining poverty.
 .6 3 2 ;(= #$$%

Researchers from the vulnerability community in contrast tend to view poverty as one
element, which may contribute to an enhanced vulnerability. Thus Adger utilizes (income)
poverty as an indicator for analysing vulnerability to climate change and to climate extremes,
because poverty correlates with a limited access to resources (Adger 1998: 7 . Vogel also
emphasises the importance of access to assets (Vogel 2001: 3), while Cardona states: “One
example is the case of poverty, which may well be considered a factor or contributing cause of
vulnerability but is certainly not vulnerability in itself.” (Cardona 2004: 48). He concludes that
the provision of basic needs is an important step towards a reduction of vulnerability.

The majority of works on the linkages between vulnerability and poverty expresses the view
that these two approaches are closely connected and influence each other very deeply, while
they are at the same time clearly distinct from each other. Particularly German Technical
Cooperation (GTZ) points out that “vulnerability can be seen as a cause of poverty, as a
reason why the poor remain poor, or as an effect of poverty” (GTZ 2005: 15). Prowse points in
the same direction, when he talks about the “mutually8reinforcing nature of poverty and
vulnerability” (Prowse 2003: 8).
The paradigm shift concerning vulnerability with a much stronger focus on the livelihood of the
people than on the hazard itself implies the necessity to analyse the interconnections between
these two concepts, as poverty weakens the livelihood of poor people on many levels: they
often live in particularly exposed areas, have less assets to protect themselves, have weak
governmental institutions, suffer from a lower health and educational standard, and have less
capacities to cope with a disaster once it takes place (Cannon et al. 2003; Heitzmann et al.
2002; Adger 1998). Cardona summarizes these factors, which determine vulnerability under
the aspects physical fragility or exposure, socio8economic fragility, and lack of resilience
(Cardona 2004: 49).
Thus there is a tenor that poor people are generally more vulnerable, regardless of the
hazard, although this is by no means a mandatory interconnection (Adger 1998; Wisner et al.
2004; Heitzmann et al. 2002; Cannon et al. 2003; Feldbrügge and von Braun 2002). The
United States as a very wealthy country and the state Louisiana in particular were severely
affected by the impacts of the hurricanes Rita, Wilma, and Katrina, which hit the east coast of
the United States between August and October 2005. They caused more than 1.000 fatalities
and economic losses of several hundred billion US$. The hurricanes affected all parts of the
population, although there are also reports saying that poorer people (e.g. people without cars
or black people) were disadvantaged in contrast to wealthier people.

Some authors deal with the special case of vulnerability to fall below the poverty line or to stay
there for a longer period (Alwang et al. 2001; Chaudhuri et al. 2002; Prowse 2003). A
definition of vulnerability to poverty is given by Chaudhuri et al.: “We define vulnerability,
within the framework of poverty eradication, as the ex8ante risk that a household will, if
currently non8poor, fall below the poverty line, or if currently poor, will remain in poverty.”
(Chaudhuri et al. 2002: 4). These approaches are mostly restricted to income vulnerability and
they try to find a common metric for all indicators. Thus they are mostly restricted to money8
metric approaches and tend to disregard other indicators that are more difficult to be
translated into monetary terms (Alwang et al. 2001: 6; see also Kamanou and Morduch 2002).
Chaudhuri et al. (2002: 6) give an example of this narrowed focus: “To estimate a household’s
vulnerability to poverty we need therefore to, at a minimum, estimate both its expected
consumption and the variance of its consumption.” Chapter 5.2 of this paper will give a more
detailed view on attempts to measure vulnerability to poverty by using an economic approach.
Generally the introduction of the vulnerability concept into poverty literature shows the
recognition of the dynamic nature of poverty, in a way that vulnerability “as an ex ante and
forward looking probabilistic measure” (Alwang et al. 2001: 8) gives information on the
probability to fall below the poverty line. This introduction of the time reference of poverty is
also expressed by the definition by Chaudhuri et al. given above.

% - ,)(1 " 0+",) & + (1 , '0),'

This section outlines the most frequently used measurements of poverty and vulnerability. It
should be pointed out that the discussion is not conclusive as there are other measures,
particularly for measuring vulnerability that are still being developed, that are therefore not
outlined in the chapter.

%/
There are several methods that are used to measure poverty. We briefly present some of the
measures in this section and also highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each
measure.
%// ) 7 $
A or a ) , usually denoted as $, is the share of the population
whose consumption (or income) is below the poverty line. This measure quantifies the share
of the population that cannot afford to buy a basket of goods. When the unit of analysis is an
individual, the poverty rate is also called a > ? since it is the ratio of
the number of poor people to the total population.

Mathematically, the poverty rate $ is given as:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ /
= ∑=
$ < *= ∑=
= '

Where: N = total population

! " an indicator function taking a value of
1 (poor) if the bracketed expression is true, and 0 (nonpoor)
therwise.
= welfare indicator, e.g., consumption per capita
z = poverty line
NP= number of poor in the population

Besides being simple to construct, the Poverty Rate measure has an advantage of being easy
to understand. It also has an advantage of being an adequate measure of assessing the
overall progress in reducing poverty. However, the poverty rate suffers from major limitations.
First, it ignores differences in well8being between different poor households by assuming that
the poor are all in the same situation. Second, the index is not sensitive to changes in the
welfare of individuals as long as they remain below the poverty line. The third limitation is that
the index does not take the intensity of poverty into account.

%/# ; ?7 /
The second measure of poverty is the Poverty Gap Index, P1. It is the average, over all
people, of the proportionate gaps between poor people’s living standards and the poverty line
(as a proportion of the poverty line). It is also called the Depth of Poverty Index.

Mathematically the Poverty Gap Index is defined as:

 −   − 
= ∑ 
=
 $ −

*= ∑ 
=


@@@@@@@ #

where the variables are defined as in equation 1.

The # measures the degree to which the mean income of the poor differs
from the established poverty line (depth of poverty). The advantage of this measure is that it
reflects the average shortfall of poor people, thereby giving a better understanding of the
depth of poverty. Another advantage of the P1 measure is that it shows how much would have
to be transferred to the poor to bring their expenditure up to the poverty line. It is therefore
easy to derive from the index, the cost for eliminating poverty with transfers (i.e. the
cost to eliminate poverty with perfect targeting of the poor and with no targeting costs or
distortion costs). However, the major limitation of the P1 index does not capture differences in
the severity of poverty among the poor and it ignores inequality among the poor themselves.

% / 3 ( 'A ; ?7 #
The third measure of poverty is the Squared Poverty Gap Index, P2. It is the average of the
square relative poverty gaps. P2 is defined similar to the Poverty Gap Index except that the
poverty gaps are squared, thus giving the highest weighting to the largest poverty gaps. The
$ #, capture differences in income levels among the poor. This
measure is also called the ' 2 ?.

Taking our previous notations, P2 can be defined as:

 − 
= ∑ 
=


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 3

The advantage of P2 is that it takes into account not only the distance separating the poor
from the poverty line (i.e. the poverty gap), but also the inequality among the poor. In
particular, the need for P2 arises because P1 may not adequately capture the distributional
changes within the poor segment of the population. For example, if a policy is put in place
which has an effect of transferring cash from an individual just below the poverty line to the
poorest person, the Squared Poverty Gap Index would be able to reflect this change, which
the Poverty Gap Index would not.
The major limitation of P2 is its lack for intuitive appeal because it is not easy to interpret it
and so it is not widely used.

%/4 ( . ; ( ?
The Headcount Index, the Poverty Gap Index, and the Squared poverty Gap Index belong to a
family of poverty measures known as the Foster8Greer8Thorbecke (FGT) Index. These are
referred to as poverty measures. A poverty measure is said to be
if the poverty measure of a group is a weighted average of the poverty
measures of the individuals in a group (Aguirregabiria, 2003).

The general formula for the FGT class of poverty measures is:
α
 −  @@@@@@@@@@ 4
α = ∑=  

where α ≥ 0
The parameter α reflects poverty aversion. Larger values of α put higher weight on the
poverty gaps of the poorest people. By setting UVWα=0, equation 4 reduces to a Head Count
Index (P0). If α UVW =1, Uthe equation 4 becomes a Poverty Gap Index, aggregating the
proportionate poverty gap, which shows the shortfall of the poors’ income from the poverty
line, expressed as an average over the whole population.

%/% ( > ?
While the measures of poverty that have been discussed in this section use income in the
calculations, the Human Poverty Index (HPI) is a non8income measure of poverty. The Human
Poverty Index is a measure of poverty that is increasingly being used by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) in its Human Development Reports. It is related to the
Human Development Index (HDI) in that it measures in the three basic
dimensions of human development that is captured in the HDI. These dimensions are: first, a
long and healthy life and its corresponding deprivation used in the HPI is the vulnerability to
death at a relatively early age, as measured by the probability at birth of not surviving to the
age of 40. Second, knowledge – and the deprivation derived from this HDI dimension is the
exclusion from the world of reading and communications, as measured by the adult illiteracy
rate. Third, a decent standard of living – and the derivation used in the HPI is a lack of access
to overall economic provisioning, as measured by the unweighted average of two indicators,
the percentage of the population without sustainable access to an improved water source and
the percentage of children under weight for age (UNDP, 2005).

The HPI is calculated as follows:


= ( α
+ α
+ α
) α
……………………………….(5)
 
where: P1 = the Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (times 100)
P2 = Adult illiteracy rate
P3 = Unweighted average of population without sustainable access to an
improved water source and children under weight for age.
α=3

%# 6
While there is a consensus on the measures of poverty, most vulnerability measures are just
been developed and some of them have not been widely adopted. It is also important to know
that different disciplines measure vulnerability in different ways. This section presents
important measures of vulnerability from the economics discipline, and the environmental
science discipline.

%#/ 6 ( ,
In the economics discipline vulnerability to poverty is measured as the probability that a
household (or an individual), whether currently poor or not, would find itself poor in the future.
Usually, the concept of vulnerability is understood in the income space to express the
probability that a household will become poor in the future. In this case,
vulnerability is measured with respect to the consumption poverty line.

Mathematically, vulnerability, Vht, is measured as:

= ( ' + ≤ ) ……………… (6)
where ch,t+1 is the household’s per8capita consumption level at time t+1.

Following from the definition of vulnerability in equation 6, the determinants of the household
consumption (ch ) are used because a household’s consumption pattern in any period is
influenced by cross8sectional determinants of consumption as well as inter8temporal aspects
of consumption. Consumption can therefore be presented in the following reduced form
expression:

= ( ' β 'α ' ε ) ……………………(7)

where: % denotes a bundle of observable household characteristics
β is a vector of parameters describing the state of the economy at time t
α and ε represent, respectively, an unobservable time8invariant household8level
effect, and any idiosyncratic factors that contribute to differential welfare outcomes for
households that are otherwise observationally equivalent.
Substituting equation 7 into equation 6, the expression for the vulnerability can be rewritten
as:
=+ ( ' + = ( ' β + 'α 'ε ' + )≤  ' β 'α 'ε ) ………………(8)
The expression in equation 8 suggests that a household’s vulnerability level derives from the
stochastic properties of the inter8temporal consumption stream it faces, and these in turn
depend on a number of household characteristics and the characteristics of the environment it
operates (Chaudhuri, 2001).

Thus, the different types of shocks that households are faced with are incorporated in the
measure of vulnerability to poverty. Covariant shocks such as droughts, floods, earthquakes,
price rises, worsened terms8of –trade for agricultural products, and other health8related
shocks that affect whole communities are represented in equation 8 as α . Household8specific
shocks such as job losses, death in the household, death of the breadwinner, indebtedness,
illnesses, injury, and birth in the family are entered into the system as ε . These shocks
determine how a household is currently vulnerable to future consumption poverty, as denoted
by the subscripts in equation 8.

%## 6 ( ,
Different organizations working on environmental sustainability have developed different
measures of vulnerability in order to advance their course. Among them include the
Commonwealth Vulnerability Index, developed in 2000.
%##/( * B ? *
The CVI was developed based on three years of intensive research carried out with the
mandate of the Commonwealth finance ministers and endorsed by the heads of government.
The index was based on two principles: first, the impact of external shocks over which the
country affected has little or no control; and second the resilience of a country to withstand
and recover from such shocks. In this framework, therefore, vulnerability means exposure to
exogenous shocks over which the affected country has little or no control, and relatively low
resilience to withstand and recover from such shocks.

The CVI is a country8level index, which ranks developing countries according to measurable
components of exposure and resilience to external shocks. The construction of the index is
based on the observation that income growth volatility is the most apparent manifestation of
vulnerability (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2000). The three sources of this volatility that are
used in the index are the lack of diversification (as measured by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development’s diversification Index); The extent of export
dependence (as indicated by the share of exports in GDP); and the impact of natural disasters
(as represented by the portion of the population affected, reflecting the cumulative frequency
and impact of these events over a period of 27 years).

Finally, these sources of vulnerability are combined to form a composite index of the impact of
the impact of vulnerability on developing countries. The resulting index is then weighted by
average GDP as a proxy for resilience.

%###( , ?
The Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) has just been developed by the South Pacific
Applied Geoscience Commission (SOCAP) and the United Nations Environmental
Programme. It was developed through consultations with governments, institutions and
leading experts throughout the world. According to UNEP and SOPAC (2005) the EVI has
been developed to provide a rapid and standardised method for characterising vulnerability in
an overall sense, and identifying issues that may need to be addressed within each of the
three pillars of sustainability, namely environmental, economic and social aspects of a
country’s development. The main aim for the creation of the EVI is to promote sustainable
development across the world and cooperation on issues relating to the world’s natural life8
support ecosystems.

The EVI is based on 50 indicators for estimating the vulnerability of the environment of a
country to future shocks. These include indicators on weather and climate (6 indicators),
geology (4 indicators), geography (6 indicators), ecosystem resources and services (28
indicators) and ecological processes and human interactions (6 indicators).
%##3 ?
The Prevalent Vulnerability Index (PVI) was developed by the Inter8American Development
Bank. The PVI estimates vulnerability in terms of exposure in the prone areas, socioeconomic
fragility and lack of social resilience.

C 0+",) & + (1 " 0+",) &+, ;)-0 '

Vulnerability hinges on the notion that certain groups in society are more susceptible to
shocks that threaten their livelihoods and survival. It is mostly the members of these
vulnerable groups that are at a high risk of perpetuating poverty to the next generation.
Vulnerable groups have a low resilience to a given shock because of a limited portfolio of
assets at their disposal. They are an important aspect in the analysis of vulnerability and
poverty because of their inability to take advantage of profitable opportunities. As such,
without substantial support they usually end up in severe and persistent poverty. Groups that
are more prone to poverty due to their high vulnerability differ significantly between the
developing and the developed countries.

In developing countries there are large sections of society that may be classified as
vulnerable. In many developing countries in general, and in sub8Saharan Africa, in particular,
HIV/AIDS infected and affected households are accounting for a significant proportion of
vulnerable groups. According to UNAIDS (2004), the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the sub8
Saharan Africa is 7.4 %. Such HIV/AIDS affected households are more susceptible to
becoming poor in the presence of a shock – whether it is an economic shock, such as rising
prices, or a natural disaster such as a flood. The situation is exacerbated because they
usually have no means to cope with the shock when it occurs. Another vulnerable group that
is increasingly becoming more common in the developing countries is orphans, mainly due to
the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In certain areas, the death of parents due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic
means that the household becomes child8headed. In such households, their resilience to a
given shock is usually very low because they hardly hold any assets, and are therefore least
protected from it.

Female8headed households also represent another important vulnerable group in developing

countries, particularly in Africa. These households have a low asset base, such that their
resilience in the face of a shock is very low. This makes them very vulnerable to the effects of
such shocks because they have low coping strategies. It is in this respect that measures to
reduce their vulnerability to the impact of shocks, thereby improving their susceptibility to
poverty need to empower such groups to make them more resilient.

The third group includes children, particularly the girl child. In most of the developing world,
special programmes are put in place to ensure that children are not malnourished; that they
have access to education and health care facilities to ensure that they lead a healthy life and
are less prone to serious poverty. However, these programmes may not be well spread
throughout a particular country, such that some children would still remain vulnerable. In
Africa, the girl child is particularly vulnerable because she is subjected to carrying out
household chores, some of which are beyond her capacity. This gives her less time to
concentrate on her studies, and it increases the likelihood of her dropping from school.

In developed countries, on the other hand, there are fewer groups of people in society that are
vulnerable. However, the elderly need special attention to ensure that they are not vulnerable
to poverty. It is in this regard that in many societies, there are social security systems in place
to ensure that the elderly, who form a significant proportion of the population in the developed
countries, are not vulnerable to poverty.

The disabled represent another vulnerable group both in developing and developed countries.
Usually, the disabled cannot manage to fend for themselves and they need special attention
to ensure that they do not fall or remain in poverty. The third category includes the minority
groups and immigrants. If there are no deliberate policies to integrate them into the wider
society of the developed countries, the minorities and the immigrants may be more vulnerable
to poverty, and may course a great challenge to the government, as is the current case in
France.

: * ', '(0 ,'

This section presents case studies from Malawi in southern Africa, Tajikstan in central Asia
and France and other countries in Europe to ascertain the importance of considering
vulnerability in any social, economic and environmental analysis, and to outline the practical
linkages between vulnerability and poverty.

:/ ( 2 6 B
Malawi, like many countries in southern Africa continues to experience severe and persistent
droughts. In the past ten years, Malawi has been hit by severe drought for about four years.
These persistent droughts, combined with the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS continue to
threaten the livelihoods of thousands of men, women and children, who depend on agriculture
for their livelihoods. It is estimated that due to the drought in the 200482005 crop production
season, more than five million people (out of a total population of about 11 million) are
currently depending on food aid. The 2004/5 drought reduced the food staple harvest to only
37% of the total food requirement.
The impact of the recurrent droughts is of great concern in Malawi because the economy is
heavily dependent on rain8fed agriculture. Almost 85% of the population in Malawi are
employed in the agricultural sector, most of whom are subsistence farmers. As such the
occurrence of a drought makes the majority of these households who derive their livelihoods
from farming vulnerable to poverty. The situation is worsened by the fact that the majority of
these farmers are so poor that they have no assets at their disposal. Some of the few
households who hold assets (in the form of livestock and bicycles) sell their assets to
supplement their consumption in the face of the drought.

The catastrophic consequences of droughts in Malawi are more prevalent in households that
are affected by HIV/AIDS. For these households, the experience of multiple shocks make
them more vulnerable to poverty. The situation is worsened by their lack of coping strategies
when these shocks occur. These households’ main coping strategy is to depend on food aid
from the Government, non8governmental organizations and international humanitarian
organizations.

Although drought is the single greatest natural hazard in Malawi, leading more households
into poverty, Malawi does not yet have effective drought preparedness and mitigation
strategies. Despite having a body of water in Lake Malawi, the country does not have any
significant irrigation networks. As such when a drought occurs the majority of the population,
most of whom live below the poverty line, are pushed further into poverty.

:# + 6 2 ( D
The economy of Tajikistan is still trying to recover after the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of the civil conflict, which together created severe poverty problems. The Government
of the Republic of Tajikistan has developed a Poverty Reduction Strategy paper, which is the
major strategy of pulling the republic out of poverty. The principal objective of the poverty
reduction strategy is to increase real incomes in the country, achieve a fair distribution of the
benefits of growth and, in particular, ensure a rise in living standards of the poorest groups of
the population (PRSP 2002).

Before independence, per capita income in the country was one of the lowest among the
Soviet republics and the percentage of population living in poverty one of the highest. This
was to a large extent the result of an economic policy that did not take into account the
comparative advantages of the country and its regions.

Poverty in Tajikistan is a multidimensional phenomenon. As various surveys show, poverty as

determined by the level of income and consumption is widespread. This is mainly due to
limited income earning opportunities and to the low level of salaries, especially in agriculture,
as well as restricted access to manufacturing assets and limited access to such key public
services as education, healthcare and water supply.
The most vulnerable groups in society are children, the elderly and the sick or invalids. The
risk of being a poor sharply increases depending on the number of children below 15 years in
the household. However, the most vulnerable to poverty and subsequent labor migration, is
rural population. The majority population of Tajikistan, 72 %, is residing in rural areas where
the poverty incidence is particularly evident.

Tajikistan economy is restricted to cotton, production of aluminium and trade. This limited
economic opportunities and Tajikistan’s mountainous terrain make it difficult for its inhabitants
to make a living. As the result of the limited economic opportunities Tajikistan was considered
one of the poor Central Asian Republics and labour migration has been an opportunity to
escape poverty. With one in every four households having members regularly travelling
abroad to generate an income, allowing them to sustain their families at home. The citizens of
Tajikistan seasonally migrate to neighbouring Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),
although the majority migrate to Russia, and the Government of Tajikistan has encouraged
Tajik commercial banks to operate transfers of remittances efficiently and at low costs. It is
estimated that in 2004 more then 286 million US dollars were remitted through these banks,
and Tajik labour migrants are increasingly using official banking channels to send back their
earnings in order to avoid leakage of their earnings during their return (IOM Newsletter 2004).
However, the remittances are increasing annually. With several hundred thousand Tajik
migrants currently abroad, and an increasing trust in the reliability of the money transfer
system, an inflow of capital is surging into rural areas. The remittances are the only source of
income in many families.

A recent survey conducted by International Organization for Migration (IOM 2004) shows that
this money is usually spent on subsistence and/ or saved for traditional ceremonies. As the
capacity to invest these resources in productive sectors is limited, support in entrepreneurship
would allow vulnerable migrant households to optimize the use of their remittances and
contribute to developing the rural economy. Indeed, it would be at best ineffective, at worst
dangerous, to leave the issue of labor migration aside of the overall framework of
development in Tajikistan. With roughly 30% of the rural male population being abroad, the
risks but also the possibilities of labor migration as a transitional agent of change should not
be underestimated: the labor migrants’ success in providing for his/her family can act as a
safety net for preventing other vulnerable community members to reverting to illegal and
destabilizing activities.
Most economists share the opinion that well managed migration flows and their derived
financial resources are one of the most promising avenues for development and reducing the
poverty in Tajikistan.
:3 > < #$$3 ,

Picture 1: A thermometer in Alicante shows an unprecedented temperature of 64°C which

represents a new dimension even for southern Spain. (& '( ) *++,' *-

The summer (June to August) 2003 was the warmest summer ever recorded on the northern
hemisphere, with temperatures being 3.4 °C above the 196181990 average in Germany
(STARDEX). Temperatures in August exceeded nearly all heat records throughout Europe.
This unprecedented event had severe economic and human consequences: it caused
economic losses of 13 billion US$, most of them in agriculture and as a cause of forest fires.
Other negative effects were a restriction in inland shipping due to low water, production
bottlenecks in industry and power plants because of heated river water, which caused
problems in cooling, and a reduction in worker efficiency, which is certainly difficult to measure
(Munich Re 2004: 23).

As the most severe effect, the heat wave caused between 22,000 and 35,000 excess fatalities
all over Europe, most of them in France, as it can be seen in table 1.

( / 2 , #$$3 ' ) #$$4 #%

The high number of deaths in France was partly due to a higher perceived temperature, which
was triggered by the higher humidity in that region. Figure 3 shows a map of the perceived
temperature for Europe on August 8, 2003.

.6 3 , 6 E7 #$$3
' ) #$$4 #%

Studies for France revealed that particularly older people were affected by the unusual
temperatures: “excess mortality in France was estimated at 20% for those aged 45874 years,
at 70% for the 75894 year age group, and at 120% for people over 94 years” (Pirard et al.
2005 . Excess mortality was also higher for women than for men (Pirard et al. 2005; WHO
2004 . Infants and children in contrast were not particularly affected. A similar affect on the
mortality of older people was also detected for other European countries, e.g. for
England/Wales (Johnson et al. 2004 and for Switzerland (Grize et al. 2005 .

People living in large cities also bore a higher risk of being affected by the temperatures: “In
summer 2003 death rates in Paris were 130 per cent higher than in summer 2002, compared
to a 20 per cent rise in rural regions (Milligan 2005 Finally one study found a reciprocal
relation between the number of excess deaths and the socioeconomic status of the affected
people in Italian cities, although there are doubts concerning the results, because many
wealthier people could afford to leave the city during the time of the heat wave (Kosatsky
2005).

Interestingly there were clear differences in fatalities between French regions or cities, with
Marseille and Nice being the most evident example: while the death excess was 53% in Nice,
it was “only” 26% in Marseille. Apart from the fact that the number of older people is slightly
higher in Nice, Marseille had already experienced a heat wave in 1983. Thus the city was
prepared in a way that it had risk management plans for hospitals and a public communication
strategy (Kosatsky 2005).

According to some studies (e.g. Meehl and Tebaldi 2004) weather situations like the one in
the summer 2003 are likely to occur much more often in the future due to anthropogenic
climate change. Furthermore there are projections saying that the number of older persons
(60 years or older) will globally triple to almost two billion by 2050 (Milligan 2005 . Therefore
measures have to be developed to help particularly older people in coping with the effects of
such extreme events. Needless to say that this is only one example, and similar measures
have to be developed for other vulnerable groups and different hazards as well.

E *-"*+0' -"'

The paper discussed the different aspects of vulnerability and how it relates to poverty. The
concept of vulnerability is a relatively new concept and different opinions exist on how to
define and measure it. However, there is a growing consensus in the scientific literature and in
the development cooperation field that the most important forms of vulnerability are
vulnerability to natural disasters, vulnerability to climate change, and vulnerability to economic
shocks. In the developing countries, vulnerability to climate change, economic shocks and
natural disasters most often make households vulnerable to poverty. This is the case because
poor people are generally more vulnerable to all kinds of hazards because of their low
resilience and poor coping mechanisms, coupled with the lack of insurance against these
shocks.
The concept of vulnerability is increasingly becoming more important because a significant
proportion of the world population is poor, and with increasing population growth, rapid
urbanisation, environmental degradation and the frequency and magnitude of natural
disasters, vulnerability is no longer a concept that can be ignored. The international
community now emphasizes on the need for a comprehensive approach to address
vulnerability. Such an approach needs to take into account the social, economic, and cultural
dimensions of vulnerability in order to fully address the catastrophic consequences of these
hazards and how they move poor households deeper into poverty or how they push people
below the poverty line.

The comprehensive approach that is being advanced by the development cooperation

community and leading scientists has resulted in the analysis of vulnerability from different
perspectives, leading to a variety of ways to measure it. While most of these measures of
vulnerability incorporate exposure to natural disasters, effects of weather and climate, among
others, a measure of vulnerability to poverty is a money8metric one. The vulnerability to
poverty measure is mainly concerned with economic shocks, and it treats the occurrence of
natural hazards as shocks that reduce a household’s welfare. The measure then quantifies
this loss (usually expressed as resulting into consumption loss) and then relates how that loss
leads a household into poverty, or moves poor households further into poverty.

The paper pointed out that vulnerability and poverty are not the same, because vulnerability is
not only restricted to poor people and because of its forward8looking nature. Nevertheless
they are closely related and efforts to reduce poverty always have to take into account the
different aspects of vulnerability, if they are aiming for a sustainable poverty reduction.

_________________________________

8 ),.,),"*,'

6 7 < " (1998): Indicators of Social and Economic Vulnerability to Climate Change in
Vietnam. .&/)0/ 1 2 0/. 345+* . & / )
0 / 6 / 6 . 7

6 6 7 (2003) Decomposable Poverty Measures, Encyclopedia of World

Poverty, Available at http://people.bu.edu/vaguirre/wpapers/decomposable_encyclopedia.pdf

B 67 F G ' 6 7 &G '+ F 6 (2001): Vulnerability: A View From Different

Disciplines. & 2 8 2 & & 2 6 1
9 Washington.

7 ! (2003): Message for the International Day for Disaster Reduction 8 October 2003.
Source:
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/public_aware/world_camp/2003/pa8camp038sg8eng.htm. Last
assessed 15/11/2005.

& 7 F (2005): Danger need not spell Disaster – But how vulnerable are we? )
9 : ;<*++= / > & 6 : 6

& 7F , (forthcoming 2006): Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of Natural Origin.

Tokyo.

& 6 7 FFG F & (2004): Vulnerability Assessment: The First Step Towards
Sustainable Risk Reduction. In: Malzahn, D.; T. Plapp (Ed.): Disasters and Society – From
Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction. 2 .
6 ? @ A *-5*B *++, pp. 75882.

& 7 > ; (2001): Vulnerability and Criticality. In: : >

8 2 0 / . 6 : +*<*++;

* * ' 7**' (2001), 2001 poverty lines

http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lic01.htm Last assessed 21/11/2005
* 7 ( G (B 667 F G F ) B (2003): Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and
Disasters. ) 8C 8 . > 8 !.> 8
& 7 D 7

* 7- (2004): The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk from a
Holistic Perspective: a Necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk Management. In:
Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; D. Hilhorst (Ed.): Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and
People. London. pp. 37851.

* 7'GF 7FG ' (2002): Assessing Household Vulnerability to Poverty

from Cross8sectional Data: A Methodology and Estimates from Indonesia. 8 2 '
. 6 New York.

* B ' (2000): A commonwealth Vulnerability Index for Developing

Countries, Commonwealth Publication

7 ' (2001): Assesing Vulnerability to Poverty. Jesus College and CSAE, Department
of Economics, Oxford University.

) + 2000 Review of Poverty Concepts and Indicators

B 67 ( , (forthcoming 2006): Integrating Social Vulnerability into Water

Management. In Print.

. 966 7 ( G F & (2002): Is the World Becoming A More Risky Place? Trends in
Disasters and Vulnerability to Them. 8 2 8 2 : ,-
. 8 ) . Bonn

; H 7 + (2005): Heat wave 2003 and mortality in Switzerland. In: & (

1 135. pp. 2008205.

;(= (2005): Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management. 0

. Eschborn.

> H 7 !G * 6 D 7 )'G & ' 6 (2002): Guidelines for Assessing the

Sources of Risk and Vulnerability. & 2 8 2 & &
2 6 1 9 Washington.

> 6 7F (2004): A Guide to the Analysis of Risk, Vulnerability and

Vulnerable Groups. Washington.

.)* (2005): World Disasters Report 2004. C ) . )

. & .

& 7 #$$4 Prevalent Vulnerability Index, available at

http://www.iadb.org/ext/disaster/pvi_es.efm, last assessed 21/11/2005

International Organization for Migration, Newsletter 2004, Dushanbe

 ** (2001): Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. . 1 0
) 2 . .
Cambridge.

F 7>G* 7+G* ) (2004): Mortality during the heat wave of August 2003 in
England and Wales and the use of rapid weekly estimates. 1>D C
. : ( ) E *,5F+ D *++,

! 7;GF (2002): Measuring Vulnerability to Poverty. 8 2 :

*++*<=4 1 8 / ) 6 : 6
Helsinki

! 7 ( (2005): The 2003 European Heat Waves. In: / Issues 789 (10).
pp. 1488149.

7 ; G * ( (2004): More Intense, More Frequent, and Longer Lasting Heat

Waves in the 21st Century. In: & 305. pp. 9948997.

6 7 F (2005): Heatwaves: the developed world’s hidden disaster. In: International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: World Disasters Report 2004. Chapter
28 summary. Source: < http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2004/chapter2.asp> Last assessed
17/11/2005.

) (2004): Topics geo – Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2003. Munich.

7 (2005): Summary of the Mortality Impact Assessment of the 2003 Heat Wave
in France. In: / Issues 789 (10). pp. 1538156.

B 7 (2003): Towards a clearer understanding of ‘vulnerability’ in relation to chronic

poverty. .2). 1 2 : *, Manchester.

' 7 'G , #$$4 Risk, Hazard and people’s vulnerability to natural

hazards – A review of definitions, concepts and data. Luxembourg.

'( ) ,I (no year): Record Warm Summer in Western Europe in 2003. STARDEX
Information Sheet 3. & ) 8 /#
/ ) .

( ; 2 ) 2( D (2002): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper,

Dushanbe 2002,

( B 7 ! (forthcoming 2006): Glossary of Core Terms of Disaster Risk Management. in:

Birkmann, J. (Ed.): Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of Natural Origin. Tokyo.

0" ' #$$4 Sub8Saharan Africa HIV/AIDS Estimates for 2004, Available at
http://www.unaids.org/EN/Geographical+Area/By+Region/sub8saharan+africa.asp, last
assessed 21/11/2005
0" #$$% Human Development Report 2005: International Cooperation at a Crossroads:
Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World.

0", '- * #$$% Building Resilience in SIDS: The Environmental

Vulnerability Index, SOPAC Secretariat, Fiji Islands; UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

0"J ' ) (#$$4 ): Living with Risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 6
: < & 8 ) Geneva.

0"J ' ) (2004b): Glossary. Basic Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction. Source:
http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/eng/library/lib8terminology8eng%20home.htm. Last assessed
15/11/2005. 6 : & 8 )

0 " >6 * 2 > )6 #$$4 Human Rights Dimension of

Poverty, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/, last assessed 21/11/2005

0" #$$$ UNDP Poverty Report

0" (2004): Reducing Disaster Risk – A Challenge for Development. 6 :

8 Programme. New York.

6 7 * (2001): Vulnerability and Global Environmental Change.

http://www.aiaccproject.org/resources/ele_lib_docs/vogel_vulnerability.pdf. Last assessed
14/11/2005.

< 7 & (2004): At Risk – Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters.
London

<>- (2004): Public health response to extreme weather and climate events. W 2
/6)<+,<=+,-*-B<;F C ( . / > 9
> *F5*= A *++, 1 > D

< ' 2 ' * 6 7 C /# /88%7

http://www.earthsummit2002.org/wssd/wssd/wssd4.htm7 last assessed 21/11/2005